I am annoyed when people buy shampoo that doesn’t say it isn’t tested on animals-- humane shampoo is easy to come by, cheap (most Big! Lots! stores carry shampoos that aren’t tested on animals), and every bit as good as (in fact better than) non-humane shampoos. Read the labels, people!
I believe in the importance of treating animals humanely and being responsible about the environment. I draw the line at setting cars on fire and otherwise damaging property and injuring people. Actions such as this do not further the cause. They hurt the cause, because afterwards, people forever associate the cause the group stands for with the stupid criminal act the group did in said cause’s name.
Tangentially, I think it’s kind of strange that people who are in favor of protecting the environment are mostly called liberals, while conservatives are interested in using up resources, to the neglect of the environment, to fuel the machine. Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t people who want to CONSERVE our natural resources be called CONSERVATIVE? Shouldn’t the people who want to (liberally) spend money on bombs and buildings be called LIBERAL? Maybe not though-- Conservative means you want things to stay the same. And things cannot stay the same. It goes against the laws of nature. Change is not only necessary; it’s inevitable, and we might as well anticipate and work with it-- by taking care of the environment and curbing population growth, yadada yadada.
I guess such monikers should never be taken too seriously, because they’re usually bound in fallacy. The “healthy forest” initiative is an example of that. How healthy is a forest that is overseen by a logging company? Or “Pro-Life.” Who would want to be called anti-life? Yeah, I know… you’ve already heard this. So have I. It’s worth reiterating, though. It’s exactly this kind of misleading nominalization that leads to things like fascism.
Okay I’m done now.